Hi Bertram,
"Why does Digital capture just extend the breadth of options further ?"
Digital is, in my mind, just another capture medium. So we have a lens, a shutter, a light tight box as constants...the image is formed by the lens, frozen by the shutter and protected/located by the light-tight box. From those constants we can decide to record the image with all kinds of films or with various digital sensors. The core process that forms the image is the same but we now have an even broader range of choices as to the recording medium.
"IMHO your comparison of the early days of photography and digital is historically illegal."
Do you mean historically incorrect? I don't think it is at all.
"The painters in those days regarded photographers as competitors, they were afraid that from now on each idiot could "paint " with such a machine and tried to keep their status as the true artists. Where is the parallel to digital nowadays?"
Some of them apparently felt that way. But there was also a widespread objection to photography because it used a machine and chemistry to make pictures (rather than a pencil or brush on paper or canvas). That reliance on technology and science (such as it was at that time) made it suspect to some (and still makes it suspect to some to this day). Then it was, to some, the evil of the machine, now it is, again to some, the evil of the computer.
"Another question: WHAT did you see that made you embracing digital ?"
That's an interesting question. You know, I think, that I do this professionally and that I worked as an exhibition printer at one time. So my involvement in silver printing was pretty deep. The first thing that really grabbed me was Photoshop. I came to see that I could have a kind of control over the look of a picture that one could never have in the darkroom, even with a lot of training and years of practice. I also could work in the light (rather than the dark), I could see changes as I was making them and I could bring a "print" up to a certain point, save it, and then continue from that point. With a graphics tablet (which I've used since 1999) I could make these changes with a pencil, in effect, just as if I was drawing on paper (which I also do from time to time). So despite whatever romantic attachment I had to the darkroom (and I still have that) I found that I vastly preferred to be working in Photoshop. Photoshop was really a revelation for me. I decided to leap and sold several thousand dollars of darkroom equipment.
For awhile I scanned film but scanning is a slow, tedious process and I make a lot of pictures (professionally and personally). Film, paper and chemistry is also very expensive, especially when one is using a lot of all three. The initial costs for digital cameras, computers, etc. are very high but for someone who works a lot, digital ends up being a less expensive medium to work with, esp. for someone like me who does not change cameras every year. But costs aside, I very much like the workflow of digital cameras. I leave for a shoot with the lenses, camera bodies, charged batteries and empty cards (all of which can be re-used again and again). I get back to my studio, I download the cards and I burn the RAW files to CD. If I want, I can review pictures immediately and, if needed, prep them for clients. It's a workflow that, for me, feels natural and smooth. It also allows me more time to make pictures because I no longer need to spend time processing film, making contact sheets, making work prints, etc.. My time can really go to three things: making the pictures, editing and making the final prints (files). I also like being able to shoot in RAW and have source files that can go seamlessly into B&W or color, I like the feedback of the histogram in tricky lighting, I like switching cards every 100 exposures rather than film every 36 exposures. I like being able to vary ISO on the fly as needed...stuff like that.
For awhile, what held me back from digital capture was the absence of the right cameras for me. When the Canon D30 came out in 2000, I bought it and used it whenever I could. When I bought my 1Ds in 2002, I no longer had the need or desire to scan film (for new work). When the R-D1 came out, I was really "home". The cameras I'd used most with film were large format view and press cameras and small format rangefinders. I still have five or so Canon QL-17s but I don't shoot film anymore.
I'll say again that I hope film, chemistry and enlarging paper remains available for a very long time. That said, to each his or her own with respect to the capture medium. It's all photography.
Cheers,
Sean
